Skip to main content

Racial Diversity, Religion, and Morality: Examining the Moral Views of Multiracial Church Attendees

Abstract

Previous research has identified an important link between participation in a racially diverse faith community and more progressive views on racial, political, and social issues, but researchers have yet to examine whether multiracial church attendees differ from racially-homogeneous church attendees in terms of their moral views. This research note utilizes national data (2005 Baylor Religion Survey) to examine the relationship between involvement in a multiracial congregation and views toward activities that are understood to be morally contentious. I estimate logistic regression models to isolate the relationship between multiracial church attendance and support for nine morally contentious activities related to sexuality, families, substance use, and suicide. Analyses reveal that, net of other factors, persons who attend multiracial congregations are more likely to express support for extramarital sex, premarital cohabitation, planned unwed pregnancy, marijuana use, and euthanasia, compared to persons who attend homogeneous congregations where they are the majority race. Multiracial church attendees thus appear to hold more permissive moral views on certain issues relative to attendees of racially homogeneous congregations. Significant interactions are also found between multiracial church attendance, race, and religious tradition. Alternative explanatory accounts (social contact vs. self-selection) are considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. Within the literature on racially diverse churches, the term “interracial congregation” is often used to describe integrated black-white congregations specifically (e.g., Edwards 2008; Emerson and Yancey 2008), while the term “multiracial congregation” may be used to describe a church comprising a variety of racial/ethnic combinations (e.g., Christerson et al. 2005; Emerson 2006). Because the specific racial composition of respondents’ congregations is unknown in this study, I use the more inclusive term “multiracial congregations.”

  2. For example, relative to whites who attend racially homogeneous congregations, whites who attend racially diverse congregations are more willing to talk about racial issues (Emerson 2006; Yancey 2007); and they more likely to express support for economic policies that help disadvantaged minority groups (Emerson 2006; Yancey 2007); they are more willing to live next to persons of different racial groups (Emerson 2006); and they are more likely to express support for interracial marriage (Emerson 2006; Johnson and Jacobson 2005; Perry forthcoming a; Yancey 1999, 2001, 2007) and transracial adoption (Perry 2011).

  3. As can be seen in Table 2 below, the vast majority of missing cases in multivariate models were due to missing values on the congregational composition variables. Of these missing cases, almost three-quarters (73.5 %) did not attend church at all and about 93 % attended “several times a year” or less. Since this study is concerned with whether participation in a racially diverse congregation predicts moral views, these missing cases did not significantly affect the analyses. Indeed, the majority of these missing cases would have been appropriately excluded anyway.

  4. The BRS also asked respondents about their opinion regarding gay marriage and gay adoption. While analyses reveal that multiracial church attendees are indeed more supportive of these relationships (Perry forthcoming b), these measures were not used in the current study since (1) they are better understood as nontraditional relationship forms rather than morally contentious activities, and (2) same-sex marriage and adoption are so politically contentious that individuals may oppose/support these relationships not necessarily on moral grounds, but political grounds.

  5. Although the original coding of the dependent variables was ordered, binary logistic regression was chosen over ordered logistic regression as multivariate models did not meet the proportional odds (also called parallel lines) assumption, namely, that the relationship between the independent variables and one category of the dependent variable are approximately the same across all other categories of the dependent variable.

  6. Emerson (2006, p. 85) cautions that respondents may exaggerate the diversity of their congregations by rounding up to the nearest 5 %. To check for this possibility, I reran the analyses tightening the requirements to be considered a multiracial church attendee. I classified respondents as attending a multiracial congregation only if they reported between 26 and 74 % of attendees at church as their same race. This change did not significantly influence the effect of multiracial church attendance. Consequently, I kept the previous 80/20 cutoff.

  7. While a spectrum of political ideology (e.g., values from extremely conservative to extremely liberal) would be a more ideal measure to predict support for moral issues than party affiliation, the 2005 BRS unfortunately did not include any political ideology questions. Consequently, I utilize political party affiliation as a sufficient measure to use as a control.

  8. Although none of the net effects of multiracial church attendance attain statistical significance at the 0.001 level, these associations are significant by conventional standards (p < 0.05 and beyond, with two-tailed tests) with controls in place, and the consistent direction and size of these associations across all of the dependent variables affirms that the net relationship between multiracial church attendance and support for these activities is substantive.

  9. Interaction terms were also tested for multiracial church attendance and other religious traditions, but none of the effects were significant in any models.

  10. I also ran the models with the interaction terms included separately so as to check for the possibility that multicollinearity was causing the interaction terms to be non-significant. The effects are the same in substance and significance whether the interaction terms are included separately or together.

References

  • Adamczyk, Amy, and Cassady Pitt. 2009. Shaping attitudes about homosexuality. Social Science Research 38: 338–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader, Christopher D., and Roger Finke. 2010. What does God require? Understanding religious context and morality. In Handbook of the sociology of morality, ed. Stephen Hitlin, and Steven Vaisey, 241–254. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bader, Christopher D., Carson Menken, and Paul Froese. 2007. American piety 2005: Content and methods of the Baylor Religion Survey. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46: 447–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burdette, Amy M., Christopher G. Ellison, Darren E. Sherkat, and Kurt A. Gore. 2007. Are there religious variations in marital infidelity? Journal of Family Issues 28: 1553–1581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burdette, Amy M., Terrence D. Hill, and Benjamin E. Moulton. 2005. Religion and attitudes toward physician-assisted suicide and terminal palliative care. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41: 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaves, Mark. 2011. American religion: Contemporary trends. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christerson, Brad, Korie L. Edwards, and Michael O. Emerson. 2005. Against all odds: The struggle for racial integration in religious organizations. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeYoung, Curtis Paul, Michael O. Emerson, George Yancey, and Karen Chai Kim. 2003. United by faith: The multiracial congregation as an answer to the problem of race. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, Kevin D. 2003. How monochromatic is church membership? Racial-ethnic diversity in religious community. Sociology of Religion 64: 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, Kevin D., and Kimberly R. Huyser. 2008. Racially diverse congregations: Organizational identity and the accommodation of differences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47: 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, Emile. 1995/1912. The elementary forms of religious life. New York: Free Press.

  • Ecklund, Elaine Howard. 2006. Korean American evangelicals: New models for civic engagement. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, Korie L. 2008. The elusive dream: The power of race in interracial churches. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, Michael O. 2006. People of the dream: Multiracial congregations in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, Michael O. 2009. Managing racial diversity: A movement toward multiracial congregations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, August 10, San Francisco, CA.

  • Emerson, Michael O., Rachel Tolbert Kimbro, and George Yancey. 2002. Contact theory extended: The effects of prior racial contact on current social ties. Social Science Quarterly 83: 745–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, Michael O., and George Yancey. 2008. African Americans in interracial congregations: An analysis of demographics, social networks, and social attitudes. Review of Religious Research 49: 301–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garces-Foley, Kathleen. 2007. Crossing the ethnic divide: The multiethnic church on a mission. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hadaway, C.Kirk, David G. Hackett, and James F. Miller. 1984. The most segregated institution: Correlates of interracial church participation. Review of Religious Research 25: 204–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ignatow, Gabriel. 2009. Why the sociology of morality needs Bourdieu’s habitus. Sociological Inquiry 79: 98–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Bryan R., and Cardell K. Jacobson. 2005. Contact in context: An examination of social settings on whites’ attitudes toward interracial marriage. Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marti, Gerardo. 2005. A mosaic of believers: Diversity and innovation in a multiethnic church. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, Samuel L. 2011. Contact, congregations, and children of color: The effects of interracial contact in religious settings on whites’ attitudes toward transracial adoption. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 42: 851–869.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, Samuel L. forthcoming a. Religion and whites’ attitudes toward interracial marriage with African Americans, Asians, and Latinos. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

  • Perry, Samuel L. forthcoming b. Multiracial church attendance and support for same-sex romantic and family relationships. Sociological Inquiry.

  • Pettigrew, Thomas F., and Linda R. Tropp. 2006. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90: 751–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, Daniel A., and Christopher J. Ellison. 1995. Interracial contact and black racial attitudes: The contact hypothesis and selectivity bias. Social Forces 74: 205–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Robert D., and David E. Campbell. 2010. American grace: How religion divides and unites us. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheitle, Christopher P., and Kevin D. Dougherty. 2010. Race, diversity, and membership duration in religious congregations. Sociological Inquiry 80: 405–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, Rodney, and Charles Y. Glock. 1970. American piety: The nature of religious commitment. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaisey, Stephen, and Omar Lizardo. 2010. Can cultural worldviews influence network composition? Social Forces 88: 1595–1614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, Louis. 1938. Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology 44: 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, Erica. 2009. Can religion trump race? Interracial friendship in protestant churches. PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan.

  • Yancey, George. 1999. An examination of the effects of residential and church integration on racial attitudes of whites. Sociological Perspectives 42: 279–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yancey, George. 2001. Racial attitudes: Differences in racial attitudes of people attending multiracial and uniracial congregations. In Research in the social scientific study of religion, ed. D.L. Moberg, and R.L. Peidmont, 185–206. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yancey, George. 2007. Interracial contact and social change. New York: Lynne Reinner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yancey, George, and Ye Jung Kim. 2008. Racial diversity, gender equality, and SES diversity in Christian congregations: Exploring the connections of racism, sexism, and classism in multiracial and nonmultiracial churches. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47: 103–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks go to George Yancey, Gabe Ignatow, the editor, and three anonymous reviewers for their feedback at various stages of this manuscript. Special thanks go to Jill Perry for her sacrifice and encouragement.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel L. Perry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perry, S.L. Racial Diversity, Religion, and Morality: Examining the Moral Views of Multiracial Church Attendees. Rev Relig Res 55, 355–376 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-012-0097-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-012-0097-7

Keywords

  • Multiracial congregations
  • Religion
  • Morality
  • Racial diversity
  • Social contact
  • Self-selection
  • Attitudes
  • Sex
  • Drugs
  • Euthanasia
  • Cohabitation